Microsoft details specs for Windows 8 tablets, shows off hardware

Windows 8's shiny new touch interface won't just be coming to Intel-compatible …

Not long after showing off the new Windows 8 touch interface at the D9 conference, Microsoft gave another demo at Computex in Taipei. Where the D9 demo had been about the software, and used regular Intel processors, the focus at Computex was on the hardware: Windows 8 was running on a range of system-on-chip (SoC) designs, including those with ARM processors.

Prototypes from three ARM partners, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and NVIDIA, in conjunction with system builders Wistron, Foxconn, and Quanta, were shown off. The Qualcomm and TI devices were both tablets, the NVIDIA device a conventional clamshell laptop. An AMD Llano-powered laptop was also on display, as was an Intel-powered system. The ARM units all billed as development devices rather than anything that will reach the market, but show that the software is running on ARM-powered machines, and looks identical to its x86 counterpart.

The company also disclosed some of the hardware constraints that Windows 8 tablets will have to follow. To get the new interface, tablets will have to offer a resolution of at least 1024x768. Anything lower and they will be stuck with a derivative of the classic Windows 7 shell. Increasing the resolution from the 4:3 1024x768 to the 16:9 1366x768 will additionally enable the "snap" side-by-side multitasking view that was demonstrated.

Mention was also made of boot performance; UEFI systems with SSDs were described as being able to fully boot, from cold shutdown to the Start screen, in under six seconds. Wake from sleep will be instant.

Microsoft also talked a little about the ARM version's compatibility with Windows. ARM Windows won't include an x86 emulator, and as such will not be able to run existing Windows programs. It is, however, the same operating system with the same APIs, meaning that it should be possible to recompile existing software and device drivers for ARM Windows with few difficulties. The same applications should, therefore, become available on both platforms, as should access to the same hardware.

With Windows 8, Microsoft is paying far more attention to the hardware, and providing far more guidance to hardware manufacturers. For example, the company has recommendations for how large to make the bezels on tablet computers to ensure that they're comfortable to hold. Combined with restrictions on the number of devices that can be brought to market, the message seems clear: Microsoft would rather have a smaller number of best-of-breed devices than the same kind of free-for-all as exists in the world of conventional PCs.

Most major software websites already autodetect, and give you the correct installer. Smaller, more specialty oriented websites cater to a different market. For instance, Adobe's website autodetects the 64 vs. 32 bit, and language, with options if it gets it wrong. Sourceforge has done this as well.

The big stuff will autodetect, and if you need the small stuff, well, you are more likely to know what you need, I would think.

After all, it's all in the user agent string your browser sends, which most people leave at default, if they even know it exists. I really hope they DON'T offer unified binaries, as I have 0 interest in having to deal with fat package downloads when I don't have a need for it. Just make use of the user agent, and have done with it.

I really hope they offer some system of unified binaries for software where you just download one installer and it installs the correct version of the software for you.

I was going to say that it should be easy, Apple did something similar with the PPC transition fat binaries and again with Universal Binaries, but with those transitions, it was understood to be a temporary solution until the respective transitions were complete. It seems MS will need to come up with a solution that works not only in this transition to ARM, but also for the foreseeable future - unless the port to ARM is also an abandoning of x86, which doesn't seem likely at all. I imagine it should be easy, but making it elegant and also a permanent way of installing software on Windows might be a tall order.

I am excited to see the direction MS is headed. I really liked the demo they showed, too. Its certainly not just windows + touch. Certainly seems ready to combat android and apple in the growing markets.

The real question now is going to be performance comparisons of ARM and x86. Sure x86 has lots of power, but when it comes to tablets, netbooks, and even basic notebooks, will x86 even matter? I know for my daily use, there are few non-MS x86 programs that I use, and most of those already have ARM compatible versions on other OSs. A nicely priced ARM notebook with10+ hours of battery might be very tempting to me.

Is it just me... or are the screen specs somewhat feeble for 2012, especially for wanting to be "best of breed"? I would think that 1600/1200 x 900 would have been a minimum bar to set.

Add that more and more usage involves HDTV ratios, so images that can be more easily converted from 1920x1080 - like 1536 x 864 (0.8x HDTV). Even 1440x810 (0.75x) would show modern planning.

1366 = 0.7114583 -- not an easy conversion, more prone to jaggies than many other multipliers. But, it is the 16x9 version of 1024x768...

... and that, sadly, shows a "still thinking like a PC - and backwards-compatibility to ancient DOS standards" mentality that may also lurk elsewhere causing unfortunate clunkiness. Personally, I like 1920x1200 - can do full HD, but not quite so narrow as 1080. Fortunately, my Dell has that ratio, but my sister-in-law who bought the almost same model a year later has the same "size" (17") screen, but 1920x1080.

Is it just me... or are the screen specs somewhat feeble for 2012, especially for wanting to be "best of breed"? I would think that 1600/1200 x 900 would have been a minimum bar to set.

2012 is only a year away, and it's not as though any current tablets are any better (iPad2 is 1024x768, for example). Hell, it's not as though may full-blown laptops sport much better resolution these days. If one thing is clear, it's that the average consumer doesn't give a damn about decent resolution. And if they don't care with laptops, where there's at least the possibility of real work being done, they're not going to care with tablets, that are more likely to be toys and video playback devices.

Quote:

Add that more and more usage involves HDTV ratios, so images that can be more easily converted from 1920x1080 - like 1536 x 864 (0.8x HDTV). Even 1440x810 (0.75x) would show modern planning.

1366 = 0.7114583 -- not an easy conversion, more prone to jaggies than many other multipliers. But, it is the 16x9 version of 1024x768...

Err, 1366x768 is almost right on 720P (in fact, most non-1080P TVs have this very same resolution), which is probably why it was chosen. And how likely are people to be able to distinguish the difference between 720P and 1080P video on such a small screen?

Quote:

... and that, sadly, shows a "still thinking like a PC - and backwards-compatibility to ancient DOS standards" mentality that may also lurk elsewhere causing unfortunate clunkiness.

I think it actually shows that you don't really understand the market, and certainly don't understand that the market, as the devices target, does not include you (or me, for that matter).

God,I hope they have some way to disable all the tile crap and go back to an actual useable computer interface. Hope this is just for a tablet...not on my desktop. What a visually annoying look for desktop.

Tying functionality to resolution? I understand it, but that needs to be presented to the user in a way they can make a real decision; spewing numbers and feature names isn't going to work.

I thought users didn't like to make decisions that had to do with stuff like specs?

Quote:

The company also disclosed some of the hardware constraints that Windows 8 tablets will have to follow. To get the new interface, tablets will have to offer a resolution of at least 1024x768. Anything lower and they will be stuck with a derivative of the classic Windows 7 shell. Increasing the resolution from the 4:3 1024x768 to the 16:9 1366x768 will additionally enable the "snap" side-by-side multitasking view that was demonstrated.

We have 3 variants:

Windows 7 ShellTablet UITablet UI with "snap" side-by-sideNow the question is, how to you present that accurately and succinctly to a new buyer? Start spewing resolution, or screen ratios and there eyes will glaze over, call the feature by something they don't recognize and they won't understand due to ignorance. Sell them something that doesn't have a feature they expected and they'll become resentful.

Yay! Microsoft are taking a crappy phone interface an putting it on a PC.....

I speak with experience with all smartphone interfaces when I say not only is Windows Phone 7 not a crappy interface, it's the best interface on the market.

The fact that you've used many interfaces doesn't really make your personal preference any more valid or factual than someone else's. Personally, I think Windows Phone 7 is irritating to use and beyond ugly. It just depends on individual taste.

Err, 1366x768 is almost right on 720P (in fact, most non-1080P TVs have this very same resolution), which is probably why it was chosen.

But converting to an "almost" normal 720 resolution will (a) introduce more fuzziness because it is not an even "3 pixels for 4", and (b) require slightly more horsepower due to the more elaborate conversion scheme and subsequent aliasing that may be needed to eliminate jaggies.

Black_Obsidian wrote:

I think it actually shows that you don't really understand the market, and certainly don't understand that the market, as the devices target, does not include you (or me, for that matter).

On the contrary - I, and everyone I know who has bought laptops and home monitors have been careful in selecting their preferred resolution. Unfortunately, many devices do not offer choices - and people have to choose something to sacrifice. One device may have a bigger & higher res screen, the other a slide out keyboard.

Many people expected the iPad2 to have a higher res screen, so it clearly is already not what people consider great. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has a 1280x800 screen (2/3 horizontal, easier calc, less fuzziness).

Therefore, I'd expect something a year from now would surpass the stuff being released today. You can probably be assured the iPad3 will definitely be more - I'd wager at least 1600x1050 range if not full HD.

1. Since when did numbers frighten buyers? You still see the HorsePower in cars, right? So what's wrong with screen resolution? It's used in TV sets with no problems. That whole mess on naming screen resolutions is utterly stupid.

2. Yes, WIndows Phone 7 is better than iPhone or Android in many ways. You'll never know unless you use it. So don't say negative things about it, because that will only should that you are ignorant of the truth. You're not ignorant, are you?

3. Nobody. Nobody can say anything about Windows 8 yet with certainty. Speculating only that If MS retains it's momentum it built with Windows 7, it should be good. Damn good.

P.S. what's with the ".8 HD" bull hockey? HD is anything 1280x720 and up. NOT JUST 1080p. idiots.

I speak with experience with all smartphone interfaces when I say not only is Windows Phone 7 not a crappy interface, it's the best interface on the market.

That is clearly debatable (until the end of time). But even if you were right and it is "bestest phone interface evar!". That wouldn't say anything about it's qualifications as a desktop interface.

I never claimed it did. I was merely stating that his claim about the quality of the interface on the phone was countered my claim to the opposite. On the phone.

Quote:

I think Windows Phone 7 is irritating to use and beyond ugly.

Usage is preference, and I won't argue your preferences there, but ugly? Geocities was ugly. MySpace is ugly. The Windows Phone interface could at worst be called bland and simple. It's dominated by black and a single color of your choice, in a standard, square grid. That's something damn-near impossible to make ugly.

I'm crossing my fingers that win8 will be nice. I love the metro interface on my phone (HTC Arrive) and I really like some of the stuff shown for a tablet, like the tiling of windows for multitasking. I'd love a uber thin convertible laptop that while in laptop orientation had the win7 desktop UI and flipped over into a tablet, has the metro interface. It would be fantastic, imo.

Usage is preference, and I won't argue your preferences there, but ugly? Geocities was ugly. MySpace is ugly. The Windows Phone interface could at worst be called bland and simple. It's dominated by black and a single color of your choice, in a standard, square grid. That's something damn-near impossible to make ugly.

I find it extremely unappealing and I don't think calling it ugly is unfair. Again, you're touching on things that are completely subjective and determined by individual taste. That something is simple or minimalistic does not preclude it from being unattractive to some people. To you, clutter is ugly. To me, boring is ugly. Windows Phone 7 is boring.

I find it extremely unappealing and I don't think calling it ugly is unfair. Again, you're touching on things that are completely subjective and determined by individual taste. That something is simple or minimalistic does not preclude it from being unattractive to some people. To you, clutter is ugly. To me, boring is ugly. Windows Phone 7 is boring.

Is it just me... or are the screen specs somewhat feeble for 2012, especially for wanting to be "best of breed"?

<snip>

1366 = 0.7114583 -- not an easy conversion, more prone to jaggies than many other multipliers. But, it is the 16x9 version of 1024x768...

It's not as bad as you make it out to be. My netbook is 1366x768 and it does a brilliant job. When I plug my netbook into my HD TV (via the RGB, no free HDMI ports!) it defaults to 1360x768 resolution. Very watchable (though I do wear glasses so I may not be the best judge).

I'm not comparing it to anything else, so that isn't relevant. I appreciate what they were trying to do in terms of simplicity, but I just don't think it was very successful. It reminds me of those cellphones for old people with the huge buttons or something =) Again, it's all personal taste. I'm sure there are an equal number of people out there who love or hate it. In the end, the fact remains that there is no objective way to say "it's the best".

I'm not comparing it to anything else, so that isn't relevant. I appreciate what they were trying to do in terms of simplicity, but I just don't think it was very successful. It reminds me of those cellphones for old people with the huge buttons or something =) Again, it's all personal taste. I'm sure there are an equal number of people out there who love or hate it. In the end, the fact remains that there is no objective way to say "it's the best".

indeed, there isn't a way to tell if it is the best or not. Since that would be as subjective as "boring". But, for microsoft, what counts is how successul they can be with this.

I, personally, don't know if I am going to like this interface or not. On a tablet, I think this will work great for me. But, on my laptop? not so sure...

Yay! Microsoft are taking a crappy phone interface an putting it on a PC.....

Every assessment from colleagues and coworkers in the industry, whose opinions I trust, have said that Metro works great and many elements work better in some ways that Android or iOS. It sounds like rather than "taking a crappy interface," they're taking a great interface. I'm not sure how I feel about using said interface on a conventional computer, but I won't know until I try it myself.

This new strategy of tight hardware restrictions is relatively unproven, right? And WP7 used that strategy and it isn't working out well so far. I'm not sure this middle road between aapl's hw ownership and goog's openness is going to work out. They're running low on partners as it is, this strategy restricts them further. As with WP7, I imagine they will end up with a few quality devices that no one markets and no one buys because everyone makes more money with Android. Sure, it will ship on desktops and laptops for businesses, but that won't win the new mobile markets.

It's baffling they don't just buy nokia or rim or contract their own hw like xbox. It's the only workable strategy as long as android fills the bottom end.